Hi all,
At the SWBP telecon yesterday Ralph, myself, David W and Guus discussed what to do about Ralph's concerns regarding publishing the SKOS Core Guide without the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification. It was agreed that the Guide and the Spec should be published together, and that the request to W3C to publish the Guide should be postponed until the Spec is approved by the reviewers.
Also, any draft of the SKOS Core Vocabulary Specification in fact describes a *snapshot* of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication. Some text needs to be added to the introductory and status sections of this document to explain this (I'll draft something asap).
Cheers,
Al.
---
Alistair Miles
Research Associate
CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Building R1 Room 1.60
Fermi Avenue
Chilton
Didcot
Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
United Kingdom
Email: a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 18 February 2005 20:58
> To: Ralph R. Swick
> Cc: Miles, AJ (Alistair); public-esw-thes@w3.org;
> public-swbp-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SKOS Core review Re: issue: non-Literal "comment"
> properties Re: new draft of SKOS Core guide
>
>
> * Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org> [2005-02-18 15:43-0500]
> > I'd hope that a generic RDF vocab browser would support data-driven
> > views such that it could be user-trained (or Web-trained)
> to know what
> > to do with, e.g. skos:definition vs. skos:historyNote.
>
> (Now we have SPARQL, its XML result format, and XQuery/XSLT, we might
> just have the raw ingredients for that...)
>
> > >> > Thoughts? I'm a little concerned w/ referencing the
> non-WD core spec
> > >> > from a WD. How much more work do you reckon there is
> on the main doc,
> > >> > Alistair?
> >
> > I have become more than a little concerned with the references from
> > the Guide to the Spec as I've been doing due-diligence on
> the request
> > to publish the Guide as a Working Draft. I think that any
> reasonable
> > reviewer of the Guide will want to follow the references to
> the Spec.
> > If the Spec is not ready to be published for whatever reason then
> > I no longer think the WG should be requesting to publish the Guide
> > independently.
>
> I'm convinced now. As much by the positive case as re concerns. By
> having the two go out at the same time, we'll be in a position to get
> slashdotted etc. and not look half-ready.
>
> (aside re publicity... subject 'tags' in blogs/flickr/etc are getting
> a lot of attention lately, and the connection w/ SKOS is being made,
> eg. see http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/003702.html from
> David Weinberger, writeup of v nice work from Siderean that
> emphasises the extra power RDF/SKOS brings to that scene...).
>
>
> > >> I was thinking that the SKOS Core Spec [1] is pretty
> much ready to go,
> > >> waiting on comments from Tom & Mark & yourself esp. re
> the 'policies'
> > >> section I added last week. Aiming to propose the SKOS
> Core Spec for
> > >> first WD at the SWBP-WG telecon next thursday (24th
> feb), which depends on
> > >> approval by Tom and Mark by tuesday/wednesday if they
> are willing to give it.
> > >
> > >If it is ready to go, should we hold off on the Guide and
> have the two
> > >go out together, cross-referenced? Or can we just put a
> redirect in? I
> > >think a "first working draft" is an attention-capturing
> event, people
> > >will print it out, think about it, etc. Do we want them to
> consider both
> > >docs at same time?
> >
> > The Guide does need to change in a minor way if the TF and WG
> > concur with dropping rdfs:comment from the superclass hierarchy
> > of the documentation properties. The TextArt figure in
> >
http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core/guide/2005-02-15#secdocumentation
> needs to be corrected.
Good catch, sorry I missed that.
> That might not need to hold up publication,
> but combined with other process questions I think we should wait
> and publish the two documents simultaneously. I believe the first
> Working Draft event will get far better reception in the public if it is
> complete (both documents) rather than done in two stages.
I think so too, on reflection and after careful review of Core today.
cheers,
Dan